In April of 2003, a number of documents were made available to conference pastors which had been prepared by the office of the bishop of the Metro NY Synod in consultation with the synod deans.

The information and supporting documents urge a twofold conclusion relative to the question of lay presidency at the Sacrament of the Altar, that being, no lay celebration under any circumstances and exclusive use of the reserved host. Neither position is Lutheran, all supplied ''theological'' materials to the contrary not withstanding.

They include a bizarrely choreographed liturgy (An Order for Public Worship with Communion by Extension) by which the laity are told to "stand back" from the communion elements (the leader stands in a visible location not (sic) near the elements), and are banned from the pulpit, even if the pastor loci has written the homily in full, (In the absence of the Presider, it is appropriate for the one sharing the meditation to speak from a place other than the pulpit).. This curious modus tollens (in logic, a mode of reasoning that affirms by denying) places the emphasis on an implied pulpit and altar role for the ordained clergy as nomistic organs of grace, over and against the centrality of the Word. The liturgy prompted one amused EKD theologian, in my visit to Tübingen this summer, to call it Tabernakelfrömmigkeit (tabernacle piety).

But far less amusing is what amounts to a skewed ordination theology being considered by the episcopal magisterium of the ELCA, found in two documents included in the packet, one by Bishop Steven P. Bouman, (That They May Be Fed,10/01/02)and the other by Dr. Paul Nelson (When An Ordained Pastor Cannot Preside, 3/23/00).

In his paper, presumably meant for study by synod deans and pastors, Bp.Bouman unfortunately makes a number of sweeping and undocumented claims, such as, An historical overview of the role and person of the presider makes clear that the ordained have presided over the eucharist from antiquity. In spite of the fact that the New Testament knows nothing of any so-called "ordinations," he adds, A review of Biblical and other sources makes this thesis clear. The only two "Biblical sources" cited, however, are Hebrews 9:11-12 -- (which is the consummate affirmation of Christ alone as presider and High Priest, the sacrament depending solely on the promise and institution of God, never the officiant); -- and 1 Peter 2:9-10,² where Peter speaks to the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, calling them all a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people. Bouman bafflingly concludes, Importantly, Peter does not say that all are 'priests' but that all are true members of the one priesthood. Aside from a clear disregard for the translation of 'ierateuma, -tos, to' (''the office of priest'' - Thayer), one must conclude the author is unfamiliar with Luther's Concerning the Ministry, (and therefore may have missed the glaring irony), in which Luther specifically references 1 Peter 2:9 for the very purpose of debunking any notion of elevated importance of ordination relative to the ministry of Word & Sacrament. He writes Apollos who came to Ephesus without call or ordination…, By what right, I ask, did he exercise the ministry of the Word except by the general right common to all Christians, as described in 1 Cor. 14:30…, This man was afterward even made an apostle without the formality of ordination, and not only functioned in the ministry of the Word, but also proved himself useful in many ways to those who had already come to faith. (LW 40, p.37-8).

Three years earlier, in the latter half of the prolific year of 1520, in which Luther formulated his mature faith in three major treatises, he declares in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, that ordination is nothing more than a rite, an ecclesiastical ceremony like many other things which have been introduced by the Church Fathers, e.g., consecration of vases, houses, vestments, water, salt, candles, herbs, wine, and the like.

Luther categorically rejects any notion of ordination in the New Testament,³ emphasizing the fact that not one of the Church Fathers ever made such a claim, nor that the laying on of hands signified an ordained priesthood.

Yet, in referring us to Clement of Rome, Bp. Bouman writes, He (Clement) holds that the bishop is the 'High Priest' in that he presides over the eucharistic sacrifice of the people of God of the new covenant. He concludes (seemingly reluctantly) however, that Clement does use the term 'hiereis' (priests) for the laity (laos) following the royal priesthood metaphor of 1 Peter 2.9 The Book of Concord, it should be noted, dismissively states the writings of Clement are spurious.⁴

That They May Be Fed contains misleading and erroneous claims, all without supportive material and too numerous to deal with in any great detail here, with an apparent eye to creating a distinctively non-Lutheran theology with regard to lay presidency. Among them:

On p. 2, Bp. Bouman writes: As to the confessional approach to presidency, an examination of the Augsburg Confession indicates that the ordered hierarchy was not an issue for the reformers., which leads to the immediate and obvious question, "Then why is it an issue for the ELCA?" The Confessio Augustana’s emphasis is on the legitimacy of the call through the local Gemeinde, which as the ecclesia particularis is fully the church. The Apology’s position is in defence of the evangelical ordnen, being properly called, and is uninterested in ordinatio, (as were the papists in Augsburg). If the Gemeinde calls a lay person to officiate, the call is valid, regardlesss of hierarchical opinions to the contrary.⁵ Ordination, on the other hand, as Luther once snapped at Melanchthon in April 1542, is "not a big deal" ("Die Ordination ist nicht so ein groß Ding!" – WATR Nr. 5428, p. 135 - 136) An "ordered hierarchy was not an issue for the Reformers" for the simple reason that it was subsumed in the question of the power of the keys, which rightfully belongs to all Christians gathered around Word & Sacrament.

On p. 3 the bishop asks, Is it possible Luther foresaw some of our contemporary struggles with the question of presidency? He then goes on to quote a paragraph from Luther’s Large Catechism (p. 380.6 Kolb/Wengert) which has nothing at all to do with lay presidency, but instead addresses Luther’s concern to the nobility regarding issues of pastoral compensation, including such basic items as food, water, clothing, housing, etc. (Cf. Luther an Hans Wurst).

But much more disturbing, is the bishop’s remark on the same page, Current thinking in the ELCA, reflected in the recent Study of Ministry, tends to move in the sacramental direction, holding that ordination is a divine office given to the candidate by God, thus the point of origin is not the congregation (emphasis mine). It is hard to imagine anything being less Lutheran, since ordination is confessionally neither a sacrament, nor a divine office,⁶ but as a adiaphorous rite, is a public witness to an existing call. Luther compared ordination to the role of a pastor at a wedding who, like a notary public, bears witness to a previously agreed upon arrangement, but whose presence, for all rights and purposes, is not actually necessary for the agreement to be valid.⁷ What is divine is not ordination, but the office of preaching, the proclamation of the Gospel, which in truth all the baptized possess, but which is given to one from among them, called by God’s people for that purpose (vocatio mediata) and, as the Smalcald Articles make clear, therefore called by God himself. Thus, contrary to the aforegoing assertion, the point of origin is the congregation.⁸

Finally, there is no basis in Lutheran theology in the last two pages of the paper in its advocacy for use of the reserved host. The notion of carrying about so-called "preconsecrated" elements (e.g., The Occasional Services) is rejected by the Formula of Concord, which requires that the entire action, including the words of institution,⁹ and the Lord’s death be shown forth at the same time (and) must be observed unseperated and inviolate. It further warns that If the institution of Christ be not observed as he appointed it, there is no sacrament. Bouman, however writes, "Reservation of the elements is to be found in the authoritative documents and worship materials of the ELCA. (That may be so, but the BoC is not among them). Some statements, on the otherhand, are downright silly. To whit: "Lutherans have agreed with others in the church catholic that the elements when consecrated remain so undiminished by the passing of time." And again, "At a minimum consecrated elements must not be intermingled with elements not yet consecrated." This is little more than a subscription to the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, rejected by Luther and the Confessions.

Article VIII of the Augsburg Confession clearly insists that the effectuality of the sacraments does not depend on the administration or administrator (or his/her ordination!), but alone on the ordination (= command) of Christ!¹⁰ Luther also did not

advocate saving, conserving, or reserving the "consecrated" sacrament. Quite to the contrary, he suggests it be destroyed, telling Spalatin to toss it into the fire lest it cause disturbance or anxiety (Igni traderem, Qui soluit infinitos huiusmodi scrupulos – WA Br 10, 3944). Additionally, he avoided both the usage and thought of consecrare, which the German of AC VIII makes clear in identifying the role of the priest as one of distributing (durch die sie gereicht werden) what Christ alone has consecrated, he who is our only High Priest. Earlier, even Melanchthon expressed his opposition to fixed communion practices,¹¹ and Luther claimed that since the words of institution are not chained to the administrator, they are effectual even if spoken to oneself.¹² By making ordination a prerequisite for administration of the sacrament, the authors of That They May Be Fed

make the person of the public servant a means of grace, contrary to Lutheran faith.

Dr. Paul R. Nelson exhibits the same confusion with regard to ordination in When An Ordained Pastor Cannot Preside. On p. 3 he writes:

When the Lutheran confessions say: "It is taught among us that nobody should publically teach or preach or administer the sacraments in the church without a regular call." (CA XIV) I believe it is referring to the practice of ordination as the confessors had known it. The fact that the Roman Confutation of the Augsburg Confession does not dispute this definition also tends to support this reading.

There are two major flaws in Nelson’s hypothesis. The first is the mistaken assumption that the Latin ordinare means "to ordain," which he then incorrectly interprets in terms of rite vocatus. The result, for Nelson, is that Luther’s Amt becomes synonymous with the rite of ordination. However, neither the Latin nor the German texts of Apology XIV allow for such a conclusion. Ordinare translates "to arrange, to order," not "ordain," which the Jonas translation of 1531 makes unequivocally clear in its employment of recht gebührlich berufen for rite vocatus. As Hans-Martin Barth argues in Rechtfertigung und Amt (MD 2/2002), vocatio can only be understood in terms of Luther’s Beruf u. Berufung, that is, "call and calling," which we all possess alike, whether clergy or lay; everyone who has a call has a calling, and therefore Amt is equally applicable to "sexton, messenger boy, and the farmhand," as well as the "schoolmaster."¹³ Neither may rite be understood as a particular form of Berufung, least of all ordinatio canonica, but merely as the need for a formal call, be it from the Gemeinde or a civil authority. Barth adds, "Commensurate with this is the fact that there were Reformation pastors who were in no way ‘ordained,’ but were installed by civil authorities, e.g., Andreas Osiander in Nürnberg." Further, Melanchthon’s substitution of iure humano for iure divino in Apology XIV signifies a most definate break with the Roman understanding of canonical ordination.¹⁴

Nelson’s second error is his assertion that the Confutatio had no problems with Apology XIV. In fact, of the first 21 articles considered resolvable, XIV was in essence tabled, for while there was agreement in wording, there was disagreement in what it meant in practice. To suggest consensus, as Nelson does, is wishful thinking, especially given that

"ordination" is not even part of the mix.

When An Ordained Pastor Cannot Preside contains other fanciful statements that border on the absurd. Nelson writes: The ancient practice of the ‘fermentum’ (the sending of a piece of consecrated bread from the bishop of Rome’s celebration to other churches across the city on the same day) is also worth exploring. Could not the bishop of an ELCA synod simply preside at a celebration of Holy Communion and ‘send’ the consecrated elements to parishes without pastors? This prompted one Metro New York

Synod pastor to suggest the local bishop simply say the words of institution from atop the Empire State Building, while doing a three sixty with outstretched arms.

With strange irony, when Nelson compares and contrasts the pros and cons of lay presidency vs the reserved host, the pros far outweigh the cons (which are based on what Barth terms Amtsfreundlichkeit). Among them:

The left-hand column is confessional. The right-hand column is sentimentality. What does it mean, for instance, that the reserved host "preserves the relationship of the ordained to the sacraments?" How is this relationship different from that enjoyed by every other baptized Christian? And how is a so-called "sacramental theology" of preconsecrated elements "extremely ‘realistic’ in nature," since every celebration of the sacrament contains the real presence of Christ? Number (3) is simply not a theological argument, and Nelson refutes himself in (4) by citing the Formula of Concord’s prohibition (on p.6). The word Schwärmerei here becomes increasingly difficult to suppress.

In conclusion, it may indeed all come down to the words of Bishop Bouman which point us to the authoritative documents and worship materials of the ELCA. Chief among those documents, of course, though fast receding into the background of this self-professed "constitutional" church, is the Book of Concord of 1580. ELCA in general, and the Metropolitan New York Synod in particular, may of course choose to do as they wish with ecclesial polity relative to lay presidency, basing them on ELCA documents and self-supporting materials. But while the Lutheran church has always subscribed to good order, and the Sacrament of the Altar is normally administered by the clergy, any claim to total prohibition of the laity in altar and pulpit ministry based upon supposed confessional ordinational prerequisites, is completely unsustainable.

• Luther 1520